Rating and Stats

Document Actions

Share or Embed Document

Pakistan & Afghanistan: Domestic Pressures and Regional Threats : The Role of Politics in Pakistan's Economy

Ishrat Husain Vol. 63, No. 1, Fall/Winter 2009 page 1-18

This article undertakes an in-depth case study of Pakistan to shed light on three questions. (a) How can a country that has suffered from political volatility and instability for such a long period achieve high rates of economic growth? (b) Have the periods of stable authoritarian regimes provided the wherewithal for long term economic performance and (c) Have external influences particularly the close relationship with the U.S. played the smoothing role? Economic and social outcomes in Pakistan over the last sixty years are a mixture of paradoxes. The economic growth rate has averaged 5 percent annually since 1947—a feat achieved by very few countries. Politically, however, the interplay of religious fundamentalism, sectarianism, ethnic cleavages and regional economic disparities has made the country volatile and unstable. Various East Asian countries that were behind Pakistan in the 1960s have surged far ahead in most economic and social indicators. Pakistan has thus been unable to realize its potential. It is usually believed that economic growth can take place only in the presence of political stability, but the Pakistani case contradicts conventional wisdom. In order to explain these paradoxes and contradictions, this article attempts to address the following questions:  How can a country that has suffered from political volatility and instability for such a long period achieve high economic growth?  Have periods characterized by stable authoritarian regimes in Pakistan provided the means for long term economic performance?  Have external influences, particularly the United States, played a constructive role? Despite sharing a common historical, cultural and social milieu, Pakistan and India have pursued different paths since independence in 1947. Both countries have done reasonably well in improving their economies and reducing absolute poverty levels. India has, however, emerged as a stable and vibrant democracy while Pakistan has spent half of its post-independence years under military dictatorships and is currently struggling to quell an Islamic insurgency in the northwest part of the country. The democracy–development nexus appears to be well entrenched in the case of India, while it is faltering in Pakistan. A great deal of recent literature has suggested that China and India are the typical representatives of authoritarian and democratic regimes, but fewer attempts have been made to resolve this puzzle in the case of India and Pakistan, two countries that are more akin to each other and share a common legacy. In order to address these questions it is useful to revisit the essential dimensions of Pakistan’s economic and political history, a history which can be divided into six distinct periods:  The Flat Fifties, 1947 to 1958  The Golden Sixties, 1958 to 1969  The Socialist Seventies, 1971 to 1977

The physical separation between eastern and western Pakistan. With the help of Harvard advisors. martial law was imposed in Lahore to quell the anti-Qadiani movement. Khan vigorously implemented the Planning Commission on Economic Management and Reforms with impressive results. together formed Pakistan. Period II: The Golden Sixties. was forced to accept parity with newly-formed West Pakistan in the Parliament.2 In February 1953. This elite from the Punjab province. cabinet and party solidarity and the role of legislature as the maker and sustainer of government—had been destroyed or gravely weakened. West Punjab and East Bengal. 1947 to 19581 Pakistan came into existence as a moth-ridden country at the time of the partition of India. Sindh and Baluchistan—also protested Punjab’s attempt to establish hegemony. Mohammed Ali Bogra. economic management took a back seat in this formative phase of Pakistan’s life. with Indian territory in between.3 Prime Minister Khwaja Nazimuddin was dismissed by the governor general. The foundation of an authoritarian streak in the polity was laid fairly early in Pakistan’s history. 1999 to 2007 Period I: The Flat Fifties. The Britishcontrolled provinces of Punjab and Bengal were each divided into two parts. The three smaller consolidated provinces—North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). East Punjab and West Bengal formed part of modern-day India. Pelf. Liaquat Ali Khan. was foisted as the new prime minister and six of the nine ministers of the dismissed cabinet joined the new government. Changing political loyalty has since become one of the main causative factors of political instability. tensions between the different tiers of the government were so damaging. and the ascent of bureaucrat Ghulam Mohammed to the office of Governor-General. 1988 to 1999  The Reforming Hundreds. put Pakistan at a serious disadvantage from its inception. the challenge of setting up the organs of a new state was so formidable. the first military dictator of Pakistan. instead of coming to grips with the grievances of East Bengal. The Revivalist Eighties. assumed complete control of the state in October 1958 and reigned over the golden period of Pakistan’s economic history. and the influx of millions of refugees from India was too demanding. The seeds of separation were further sown when the Muslim League lost the 1954 provincial elections in East Bengal due to a growing disaffection with the ruling political elite in West Pakistan. As a result. As a result. After the death of the first prime minister. which contained the majority population.6
. patronage and power have dominated the political scene. 1958 to 19695 Ayub Khan. Scholar Keith Callard termed this a “governorgeneral’s coup.”4 He observed that three major conventions—the impartiality of the governor general. political instability was too acute. The political atmosphere was too vitiated. the supremacy of politicians in the political order was lost. along with three other provinces. 1977 to 1988  The Muddling Nineties. adopted a confrontational strategy to consolidate their power by merging all four western Pakistan provinces into one province. Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States. East Pakistanis were antagonized when their province.

ended in the emergence of the independent state of Bangladesh. build up new alliances or take coercive measures against recalcitrant individuals and groups. introducing the Basic Democracies system. exposed the fragility of the guided democracy system. with India’s strong backing. the elected majority leader. His six-point agenda of autonomy became the manifesto of the Awami League which swept the 1970 elections in East Pakistan with a resounding majority. The arrest and trial of Mujibur under the Agartala conspiracy case turned him into a popular leader in East Pakistan.A. Yahya Khan’s reluctance to transfer power to Sheikh Mujibur. Although East Pakistan benefited from Ayub’s economic reforms.8 By 1969. Pakistan’s manufactured exports were higher than the exports of Thailand. had the economic policies and programs of the Ayub regime continued over the next two decades. the fact that these benefits were perceived as a dispensation from a quasi-colonial military regime to its colony—East Pakistan—proved to be lethal. Ayub’s attempt to win legitimacy.14
.11 The break-up of Pakistan had a traumatic effect on the national psyche and negated the very concept upon which Pakistan was founded. The lesson is: no federating unit will surrender its rights to autonomy in exchange for any development works however huge their fall out. Governance improved with a major expansion in the government’s capacity for policy analysis. in fact caused his regime a loss of popularity and credibility. Malaysia and Indonesia combined.9 Though speculative. the perception that income inequalities between the East and West had increased substantially and that wealth was concentrated in the hands of twenty-two families fuelled resentment among Bengalis who accused Ayub’s regime of reducing the East to an internal colony.7 The Pakistani polity evolved from what political scientists called a “soft state” to a “developmental” one that had acquired the semblance of political legitimacy. but domestically there was a total rejection of this economic model.10 Authoritarian regimes devoid of legitimate political power use the instruments of state power to win or maintain coalitions. reinforced Bengali suspicion and mistrust toward the Pakistani Army and West Pakistan. The post-25 March 1971 events led to a civil war that. it is possible that. Pakistan was a model developing economy to emulate. Pakistan would have emerged as another miracle economy. According to I. Period III: The Socialist Seventies. The reimposition of martial law and transfer of power to the Army chief. The manufacturing sector expanded by 9 percent annually and various new industries were set up. 1971 to 197713 Zulfikar Ali Bhutto took advantage of the resentment against Ayub’s economic policies and promised to restore the principles of distributive justice and equity to the forefront of Pakistan’s development strategy under the slogan of Islamic socialism. Rehman. This disaffection with the military regime was exploited by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his Awami League Party.”12 The overthrow of Ayub’s political system also reversed the economic system that had served the country so well. To outsiders.GDP growth in this decade jumped to an average annual rate of 6 percent from 3 percent in the 1950s. as well as the far-reaching process of institution building. “[The] Central Establishment decided on a trade-off between autonomy and development but this maneuver failed in East Pakistan and it is unlikely to succeed in Balochistan and the tribal areas. Agriculture grew at a respectable rate of 4 percent with the introduction of Green Revolution technology. Yahya Khan. design and implementation. However.

Income inequalities rose compared to the previous period while inflation accelerated. primarily sparked by vast public sector investment. ethnic and sectarian violence. the smuggling of goods and the emergence of jihadist parties can all be traced back to the 1980s. however. new Shariah courts were established and the educational curriculum was revised to inculcate a more hard-line or radical Islamic way of life. thereby limiting political participation to the local level only. either. The roots of present Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan can be traced to this period. The lesson learned from this experience was that good populist politics are bad for the economy. 1988 to 199919
. netting a growth rate of only 3 percent. averaging 16 percent between 1971 to 1977. Political party activity was soon banned. thereby hurting the poor. derailed Pakistan’s journey toward modernization and faster economic development. as large amounts of military and economic assistance from the United States flowed into Pakistan. The growth rate in the 1970s fell to 3. State laws were modified.Bhutto’s populist policies of nationalizing industries. halted the socialist experiment.6 percent annually. The spread of Kalashnikovs and drug culture. Fiscal deficits. the main plank on which the Bhutto government came to power—social justice—proved to be extremely weak. did improve: GDP grew at 6.16 Period IV: The Revivalist Eighties. Centralization and personal control over the affairs of the state thus became easy to manage under this paradigm. however. widened to 8 percent of GDP despite a decline in development expenditure. Pakistan had to approach the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for assistance in 1988. 1977 to 198817 The overthrow of the Bhutto government by a military coup in July 1977 and the ascendancy of a right wing military leader. Period V: The Muddling Nineties. insurance companies. As a consequence. This small liberty.7 percent per annum from the 6 percent recorded in the 1960s. was extended to engulf the Islamic militant groups that participated in the Afghan war against the Soviets. allocate resources and invest in the activities that it considers a priority not only failed to materialize but antagonized the private sector.15 The large-scale manufacturing sector performed very sluggishly. Zia benefited from participating in the campaign to overthrow the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Economic conditions. could not mask the centralization of political power in the hands of one man. colossal. banks. however. The long-term costs were. with agriculture at 4 percent and the manufacturing sector at 9 percent. such as Jamaat-eIslami. The idea that government control of the commanding heights of the economy can best spearhead industrial growth. The nexus between the military regime and components of the religious right. Worst of all. asserting that Islam should be a unifying force for overcoming ethnic. This setback hit Pakistan so badly that the East Asian countries that were lagging behind Pakistan in growth and economic indicators in the late 1960s not only overtook it but also became huge success stories. educational institutions and other organizations. however. linguistic and other propensities prevailing in the country.18Madrassahs and training camps for militant groups proliferated during this period. The oil price shock of the 1970s as well as droughts. General Zia ul-Haq. Zia ul-Haq used religion to provide legitimacy to his takeover and subsequent rule. floods and the withdrawal of external assistance did not help the situation. Domestic borrowing to finance these deficits did not weaken growth immediately but had serious repercussions for public finances and macro-economic stability in the 1990s.

which formerly bridged the gap between national savings and investment. An interesting paradox is that the economic policies of both major political parties. Social sector expenditures were squeezed to accommodate higher debt service and defense expenditures. The investment ratio fell to 13. four elected and one following the military coup of October 1999) ruled Pakistan in this period. were similar and could not be faulted. First. The Human Development Index of the United Nations Development Programme ranked Pakistan in one of its lowest development categories. Poor governance would have been
. Third. there was widespread misgovernance by the two major political parties ruling the country during this period. Foreign investors were unhappy as all the power purchase agreements were re-opened and criminal action was initiated against Hubco.9 percent during 1998 and 1999 as foreign savings. such as the nuclear testing in May 1998 that shook investors’ confidence. rising from $20 billion in 1990 to $43 billion (47. Fourth. there were unforeseen exogenous shocks. Like the 1950s. Development expenditures took a major hit and GDP dropped to 3 percent from 8 percent in the first half of the 1980s. The incidence of poverty nearly doubled from 18 to 34 percent. The persistence of fiscal (above 7 percent of GDP) and external deficits (4 to 5 percent of GDP) led to the accumulation of large levels of domestic and external debt throughout the decade. when eight successive governments were formed. While the agriculture sector recorded higher output. It can only be speculated whether the economic output for the decade would have been better had these governments completed their terms in office. liberalization. greater reliance on market forces and other economic reforms. Second. Total external debt levels became unsustainable. political instability and frequent changes in the government followed by a reversal of decisions taken by the preceding government created an environment of uncertainty and a lack of predictability. privatization. Despite far-reaching reforms introduced in 1991. Exports stagnated and Pakistan lost its market share in a buoyant world trade environment. parochial and party loyalty considerations dominated decisionmaking while institutions were bypassed. The supporters of PML and PPP argued that the dismissal of the Nawaz Sharif government in 1993 and of the Benazir government in 1996 did not allow positive trends to persist. growth of the manufacturing sector was low. Pakistan’s largest foreignowned power generation company. led to the imposition of economic sanctions and disrupted external economic assistance. The cumulative effect of avoiding and postponing such decisions. proved too costly. economic indicators once again fell sharply in contrast with the 1980s for several reasons other than political instability. Both parties were committed to deregulation. the Pakistan Muslim League (PML) and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). The GDP growth rate decelerated to 4 percent. there was a lack of political will to make timely and difficult decisions. Personal. this period saw heightened political instability.20 At least four main factors determined Pakistan’s economic performance in the 1990s. and the unemployment rate rose as well.6 percent of GDP) in 1998. The failure to implement successive agreements led to the loss of Pakistan’s credibility among the international financial community. Social indicators lagged behind other countries in the region. The confidence of local investors eroded when the foreign currency deposits of Pakistanis were suddenly frozen. dried up in May 1998.Nine different governments (four interim-appointed. accelerated the flight of capital. who took turns ruling during the 1990s. coupled with the failure to correct the distortions at the right time.

the incoming military government was faced with four main challenges: heavy external and domestic indebtedness.23 Excluding the military and interim governments. foreign investment flows dwindled by $600 million. the declining tax-toGDP ratio and inflexible expenditure structure. The exchange rate remained fairly stable throughout the period. Since then. The situation worsened after March 2007. Lack of attention to economic issues by the incoming government further contributed to macroeconomic instability and created an atmosphere of crisis in the country. 1999 to 200721 In October 1999. The stop-and-go cycle faced by Pakistani economic actors imposed enormous costs in terms of macroeconomic instability. high fiscal deficit and low revenue generation capacity. The unemployment rate also fell from 8. depending upon the methodology used. constrained the government’s ability to increase the level of public investment. official transfers turned negative and Pakistan had no access to private capital markets. Workers’ remittances decreased by $500 million. adverse external conditions worsened the problem. up from 3. the global financial turmoil hampered foreign private inflows and the recession in OECD countries reduced the demand for Pakistani exports. rising poverty and unemployment. Period VI: The Reforming Hundreds.largely offset by the continuity in policies. The country faced a serious external liquidity problem as its reserves were barely sufficient to buy three weeks of imports and could not possibly service its short-term debt obligations. the elected government has not pursued the unfinished agenda of reforms with the same vigor and commitment. whereby 80 percent of revenues were preempted to debt servicing and defense. the average life span of a politically
. The assassination of the most popular leader of the country. The fiscal deficit remained below or slightly above 4 percent of GDP. programs and projects. The preoccupation with the impending elections resulted in serious lapses in economic management as key adjustment decisions to escalating international oil and commodity prices were postponed. Governance issues that characterized the 1990s have begun to rear their ugly heads once more. The re-profiling of the stock of debt brought down the debt-toGDP ratio from 100 percent to 55 percent. Structural policy reforms combined with an improvement in economic governance laid the foundations for accelerated growth from 2002 to 2007. In the domestic sector.8 million new jobs were created between 1999 and 2008. plunged the country into a state of uncertainty while the transition from the military to the civilian-elected government was not managed properly. So while domestic factors were mainly responsible for Pakistan's economic crisis. Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto.4 percent to 6. Political Instability and Economic Growth Pakistan has seen twenty-three governments in the past sixty years.5 percent and approximately 11. Foreign exchange reserves increased to cover six months’ imports from a few weeks’ imports. when the government became embroiled in a judicial crisis. The investment rate grew to 23 percent of GDP and an estimated $14 billion of foreign private capital inflows financed many sectors of the economy. The global financial turmoil and the recession in OECD countries did not help either. five interim governments and thirty-three years of military rule under four different leaders. and a weak balance of payments with stagnant exports. Gross and net enrollment ratios at the primary school level recorded upward movement. Poverty was reduced by between 5 and 10 percentage points. including: fourteen elected or appointed prime ministers.22 The economic growth rate averaged 7 percent.1 percent in 2001 to 2002.

distribution and trade leads to inefficiency.24 The liberal private sector-led growth model that was put in place in the 1950s and accelerated in the 1960s was rolled back by Bhutto in the 1970s and became the socialist economic model. The transfer of power from the military to civilian regimes in 1971. expand and close business by government functionaries should be discouraged. Only public administration. operate. on the other hand.25 While the government’s implementation of policies.  Licensing to open. traded and distributed by the private sector amount to 90 percent or more of the national income while the government directly or indirectly owns. transitions from one political regime to another have been quite difficult. Wholesale and retail trade. incur heavy budgetary costs and benefit the wellto-do classes rather than the poor. seeds. a slow down in
.6 years.  Public sector ownership and management of business.  Administered prices of key commodities are the worst possible means of insulating the poor segment of the population from the onslaught of market forces. finance and insurance. transportation (with the exception of railways and Pakistan International Airlines). causing uncertainty and short-term reductions in the speed of economic growth. controls or regulates the remaining 10 percent of national income. waste and corruption.elected government has been less than two years. If the five-year period of Bhutto is excluded. operating in a relatively liberal policy environment.  High tax rates on individuals and corporations are counterproductive as they discourage effort and initiative. with all its flaws. is under the control of private firms. that has been the main driver of long-term economic growth in Pakistan. controls and restrictions of all kinds on the private sector hike up the cost of doing business. programs and projects has seen uneven and mixed results. has only changed twice in all of Pakistan’s history. personal and community services. water. So it is the strength of private initiative. manages. A rough approximation would indicate that goods and services produced. Since the rejection of this model in 1977 and the revival of the liberal model.  Subsidies on inputs such as fertilizers. There has been a broad consensus among all major political parties on the general principles that should underpin Pakistan’s economic direction. is owned and managed by private farmers.  Banks and financial institutions owned and managed by the public sector offering cheap credit and/or directed credit have a pernicious effect on economic growth. the initiative in driving the economy can be credited to the private sector. etc. the general thrust of economic policy has remained unaltered. with a few odd exceptions. 1988 and 2008 were marked with macroeconomic instability. then the average span falls to 1. defense services and public utilities are directly managed and operated by the government. ownership of dwellings and the construction sector all fall within the purview of the private sector. namely:  Central planning and bureaucratic judgment are poor substitutes for the market’s judgment in the allocation of scarce resources. In Pakistan. The agricultural sector. representing 20 percent of GDP. production. Manufacturing.  Foreign investment and multinational corporations are to be encouraged as they are important conduits for the transfer of technology. Imports and exports of goods and services are also privately managed. managerial skills and organizational innovation. The economic policy regime.  Over-regulation..

credit-induced. those opposed to these regimes have assailed the very economic record that has been espoused as their achievement. and Musharraf’s decision to openly support the United States in the war on terror brought in approximately $10 billion of military assistance. Without the involvement and participation of the people. prove to be short lived. short-term losses caused by political volatility have not been large enough to offset the positive long-term secular economic movement. rising unemployment and inflation and the adoption of a wait-and-see attitude by investors. 1980s and 2000s. The third line of argument is quite persuasive. Economic accomplishments devoid of political legitimacy.”26 Musharraf’s economic strategy. Zia and Musharraf periods. Such detractors lay out three arguments. however. Second. it is the acceleration of inflows of foreign assistance to Pakistan that led to the observed higher growth rates rather than sound economic policies. have led many to conclude that authoritarian regimes are better suited to bring about economic development. According to Parvez Hasan. the authenticity of the poverty and unemployment data has been challenged. Detractors of the authoritarian regimes. The Ayub period is blamed for the widening regional disparities that led to the secession of East Pakistan. have skillfully torn apart the economic performance record of the Ayub. elegant and technically sound economic solutions developed by authoritarian regimes are quickly
. Indonesia. as they are relatively more obsequious and subservient to the American interests. was also dismissed on the same grounds: that consumer-led. The spurts in economic growth during the 1960s. The long period of political stability and sustained growth under Zia ul-Haq offered major opportunities for dealing with the underlying structural issues but these were not exploited. it has become popular folklore: Ayub was rewarded for his close economic and military ties with the United States in confronting the Soviet Union. Authoritarian vs. Since the legitimacy and perpetuation of these regimes were justified on the basis of good economic outcomes. Zia ul-Haq received a boost as $5 billion was channeled through Pakistan for Afghanistan’s mujahideen. It became the norm to practice selective acceptance of government-produced data showing negative trends and outright rejection of the data from the same source showing positive trends. however impressive they may be. Parallels are drawn with China. when the country was governed by military dictators. the debate over whether authoritarian or democratic regimes have delivered better results in terms of economic performance has been quite fierce since General Khan took power in 1958. which made Pakistan one of the fastest growing Asian economies. Korea and Singapore. service-focused growth neglected agriculture and the manufacturing sectors. the solid record of high growth rates under military regimes is believed to result invariably in adverse distributional consequences. they argue that the United States had always been more favorably disposed toward Pakistan’s military dictators. “Zia’s economic policies represented a rather sharp contrast between reasonably satisfactory shortterm economic management and an almost total neglect of long-term policy issues. better governance and the efficient utilization of resources. Democratic Regimes In Pakistan.economic activities. Although empirical evidence to substantiate this argument hardly exists. But economic recovery has also been resilient. First. Thus.27While the World Bank and Asian Development Bank publicly acknowledged a significant decline in the incidence of poverty and International Labor Organization (ILO) experts validated the fall in the unemployment rate. Zia ul-Haq’s policies were criticized for their failure to deal with structural weaknesses or reverse the damage done by the policies of nationalization. making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Benazir Bhutto rightly embarked upon public-private partnerships by inviting independent power producers (IPPs) from the private sector to set up electricity generation plants to overcome power shortages. most distinctions appear superficial. Both the civilian-elected and military regimes have demonstrated the same characteristics and weaknesses —personality cult leadership. as guarantees that the United States would come to its rescue if its territorial integrity was threatened by India. Some of these initiatives. China and Eastern Europe. deprived of funds or abolished completely attests to this phenomenon. the internal fissiparous tendencies among the various ethnic and linguistic communities and a weak economic base with no significant natural or human resources all added to Pakistan’s insecurities and pushed it toward finding a strong ally. Liberal Western democracies were unable to reconcile themselves with the partition of a country on the basis of religion. ‘Authoritarianism’ involves great relevance and obedience to authority and stands opposite to individualism and freedom that come with it. The phenomenon of abandoning the previous government’s plans and policies is not confined to the military-civil transitions but also from one elected civilian government to the other. Pakistan aligned itself with the United States while India aligned itself with the Soviet Union. time delays. Despite lofty ideals for democracy promotion. Thus the marriage between a new. repression of opponents and cronyism. Pakistan has over the last sixty years been an authoritarian polity both under the civilian as well as military regimes.S.28 External Influences The international community showed skepticism at the creation of Pakistan. is at serious risk of abandonment. insecure state wanting to protect its territorial integrity. the structural deficiency in the creation of Pakistan. which decentralized the delivery of basic services to local levels. the adversarial relationship with its large neighbor India. During the Cold War. and a superpower looking for key strategic assets and alliances in Asia and the Middle East was quite convenient. including the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO). which alleged that corruption was involved in the awarding of contracts. By the time the project had resumed. cost over-runs.replaced once the regime changes. the United States found the efficiency of an
. such as revitalizing higher education and expanding adult literacy and health programs have been brought to a grinding halt. Both the civilian leaders coming from an agrarian and feudal social background and military leaders from the Command and Control structure of the armed forces have demanded absolute loyalty and compliance with their institutions of origin. When one goes beyond labels and examines the actual behavior of military and civilian regimes. causing irreparable losses to the economy. The United States was more than happy to oblige and found that Pakistan’s strategic location fit in well with its desire to build a cordon sanitaire around the Soviet Union. The Devolution Plan of 2001. The recent example whereby good initiatives taken by the Musharraf regime were either suspended. the incoming Bhutto government suspended the motorway project initiated by the Nawaz Sharif government. Scholars such as Christopher Jaffrelot believed that Muslim historical heritage was an insufficient bond to glue ethnically diverse groups into a nation.-sponsored pacts. Pakistan viewed U. centralized decision-making.29 In any case. The IPPs were put on hold by the new government. contract cancellations and legal entanglement had reduced the efficacy of the project. In another example.

The solution was the strengthening of the military. It believed it had the best interests of the country at heart and therefore knew exactly how to bring about the reforms needed to spur economic development. Pakistanis trained in U. do not substantiate this belief. universities and policy-oriented research at PIDE laid the foundations of economic thinking for a market-friendly. unfortunately. Because of its merit-based induction and promotion system. foreign aid commitment was 5.-Pakistan relations as Pakistan was presented as a model for other developing countries to follow. something had to be done to fix this supposed problem. access to an air base in Peshawar to fly spy planes to the Soviet Union? Would the U. As political uncertainty and instability are anathema to a market-based economy. private sector-led liberal. The most critical and enduring intervention was the induction of the Harvard Development Advisory Service in the planning machinery. Nawaz Sharif’s reforms in 1991 were even more far-reaching and were followed by Benazir Bhutto and now by the Zardari government. under the military government of Ayub. development and food assistance. military grants from China and subsidies from Saudi Arabia. But the outcomes under these civilian regimes have been disappointing. consistency and predictability are needed by the markets. universities for advanced degrees and occupied key policymaking and technocratic positions in the government. which even today remains professionally the best institution in the country.S. while under the democratic regime of Bhutto it almost doubled to 10. neoclassical model.31 Foreign savings comprised 21 percent of financing investment in the 1980s while from 1990 to 1994 it rose to an average of 25 percent.8 percent of GDP. Pakistan allowed U. In turn.5 percent. The empirical evidence to the above hypothesis is provided by the relative economic outcomes during the three military regimes compared to the dozen civilian governments.S. continuity. policymakers considerable space for intervening in domestic public policy matters. planners and civil servants were sent to leading U. coupled with superb professional training and conduct.S. the Pakistani military was considered the real guardian of the nation’s territorial and ideological frontiers. producing impressive results. Stephen Cohen also echoed the popular belief that the two most dramatic spurts in economic growth during the Ayub and Zia ul-Haq years were accompanied by high levels of aid from the United States. it was weak governance and not policy direction that created the deviations from the trend under various regimes. dispersed and ineffective democracy.S. with its unified command and control structure.obsequious military regime.30 The facts. This combination of foreign advisors.S. Transparency.S. Economic development under Ayub was a high point in U. Every military dictator removed the preceding elected governments on the pretext that they were damaging the economy. A large number of young economists. The Ford Foundation became actively engaged in the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE). strategy of removing the Soviets from Afghanistan have been so successful absent a military regime’s help? Would the Bush ultimatum in the aftermath of 9/11 have been accepted by a political leadership that did not combine the command of the military and the constitutional authority of the civilian government? The answers to these questions are unclear at best.
. Would a democratic regime have allowed U. to be more suitable for its larger geopolitical goals as opposed to dealing with a messy. The United States became actively engaged in Pakistan’s economic development through its bilateral military. Zia ul-Haq and Musharraf pursued the same set of policies over longer periods of stability. In 1968. and the military regimes thought they were the only ones who could provide those enabling factors.

I argued that the failure of governance and the consistent domination of political power and the state apparatus by a narrowly based elite seeking to advance its private and parochial interests lay at the heart of the problem in Pakistan. Parvez Hasan estimates that economic growth and social progress would have been faster if defense spending had been reduced by 2 percent of GDP and the liberated resources were utilized to increase public development spending by more than one-third. has contributed to their reluctance to normalize relations with India even after learning through repeated misadventures that Pakistan can. was also a reaction to India’s move to become a nuclear power. has resulted in three wars and can be seen as one of the factors behind the erratic performance of Pakistan’s economy. military and economic assistance encouraged Pakistan’s military leaders to overestimate their power potential. elected representatives have indulged in distribution of patronage to their supporters as well as to self-enrichment. delivery systems and other defense mechanisms. The excessive use of discretion in case-by-case
. It has. particularly in the initial three years. It is popularly believed that a high level of defense spending has had a detrimental effect on the economy. either military or civilian. conventional weapons. however. away from the civilians and the military. But in reality the country has always paid a heavy price in the aftermath of non-democratic regimes in the form of severe economic disruptions. slow down or be relegated to the back burner since 2002. An orderly transition of power at regular intervals through a predictable democratic process is the least damaging means of keeping the economy moving on an even keel. policy reversals. According to Hussain Haqqani. at best.34 Regime changes.33 This. Besieged with a feeling of uncertainty over their future. Both the preoccupation with keeping power—applied to both the military rulers and the elected regimes—and fending off attacks from the opposition by co-opting them through state patronage or by coercion has led to laxity in fiscal and monetary policies and to the concentration of economic and political power.32 Pakistan’s quest to acquire nuclear capability. Many far-reaching structural reforms were successfully carried out during this period. This was a period of relative political stability steered by technocrats. did not make any substantive difference. the intermittent flow of U. in turn. The experience I gained as an economic policymaker between 1999 and 2005 has fortified my belief in the validity of this proposition. forced to resign or overthrown further accentuated the tendency of risk aversion. which has existed since 1947. Conclusion Ten years ago.S. On the basis of superficial empirical evidence it may be tempting to make a spurious correlation between economic growth and authoritarian regimes. complete breakdowns of institutions and a lack of accountability. hold India to a draw in military confrontations. The tour d’horizon of the past sixty years of Pakistan’s economic history lends credence to the argument that interruptions to the orderly political process whereby elected governments were dismissed. Whether this objective was achieved by sacrificing investment in education and social development remains a debatable but unsettled question.The strained relationship with India. The wars fought with India over Kashmir are presumed to have led to substantial increases in defense expenditure. when a quasi-political regime assumed power. been painful to see some of these reforms unravel.

2000). The Economic and Political Development of Pakistan (London: Routledge. Abbas. 1994). The Strategy of Economic Planning: A Case Study of Pakistan (New York: Oxford University Press. Mahbubul Haq. Mass. Pakistan Development Policy Review—A New Dawn? (Washington.policymaking to favor narrow interest groups has derailed institutionalized decision-making based on wellestablished rules and transparency in transactions. 1963). Irving Brecher and S.Economic Policy and Industrial Growth in Pakistan (London: Allen & Unwin Ltd. Hasan Askari Rizvi. with such flaws and shortcomings as corruption and patronage. Mass. Safdar Mahmood. The lesson to be learned from this experience is quite obvious but worth repeating. Civil-Military Relations in Pakistan (Boulder.: Harvard University Press. From Crisis to Crisis: Pakistan 196269 (New York: Oxford University Press. 1972). Trade. 1972). Pakistan: The Formative Phase (New York: Oxford University Press. Finance and Development in Pakistan (New York: Oxford University Press. 1968). Development Policy II/The Pakistan Experience(Cambridge. Pakistan: A Study of Political Developments 1947-97 (Lahore: Sange Meel Publications. 1966). G. 3 Qadiani is a religious minority sect that is not accepted as truly Islamic by orthodox Islamic groups. 1984). Andrus. Pakistan: A Political Study (Oxford: Allen & Unwin Ltd. Pakistan’s Development: Social Goals and Private Incentives(Cambridge. Lawrence Ziring.
. and Stephen Lewis Jr. 8 Omar Noman. 1991). Pakistan’s Development Priorities (Karachi: Oxford University Press. 1972). 1971).. D. Falcon and G. Democracy.: Harvard University Press. Russell and Aziz Ali Mohammed. The State of Pakistan (London: Faber and Faber. see: Khalid Bin Sayeed. and W. 1967). Hamid Yusuf. Ayub Khan: Pakistan’s First Military Ruler (Lahore: Sange Meel Publications. Rushbrook Williams. Pakistan: Failure in National Integration (New York: Columbia University Press. 2 Yusuf. summarize the philosophy that underpinned the Ayub era’s economic policies and management. Saeed Shafqat.C. Papanek. Altaf Gauhar. 1997).J. and Viqar Ahmed and Rashid Amjad. 6 The two books produced by the Harvard advisors.A. J. 4 Keith Callard. 5 This interesting period has been scrutinized by a number of scholars. 10 Raunaq Jahan. 9 World Bank. NOTES 1 For substantive discussion of the political and economic developments in this period. 7 S. may cause economic disruptions and slow down development in the short-term.F. 2002). 1966). CO: Westview Press.. The Management of Pakistan’s Economy 1947-82 (New York: Oxford University Press. Pakistan: A Study of Political Developments 1947-97. 1968).: Government Printing Office.F. Papanek. 1984). The Military and Politics in Pakistan (Lahore: Sange Meel Publications. 2000). 1999). But it should be allowed to run its course as the inherent process of fresh leadership and governmental accountability through new elections provides a built-in stability to the system that eventually brings the economy back to equilibrium. Burki and Laporte R. Foreign Aid and Industrial Development in Pakistan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1969).. Interruptions to the democratic process in the name of economic efficiency have created more problems than solutions in Pakistan. Pakistan: Political Roots and Development 1947-99 (New York: Oxford University Press. 1997). Pakistan in the 20th Century: A Political History (New York: Oxford University Press. Herbert Feldman.

Sharpe.A. Burki and Craig Baxter. “Musharraf’s Crisis of Legitimacy” in
.J. Pakistan at the Crosscurrent of History (Lahore: Vanguard Books Ltd. “The Destruction of Democracy in Pakistan” and “Democracy in Crisis: Pakistan Politics 1993-98” in Ian Talbot.. Arif. Owen Bennett Jones. Pakistan Under Martial Law 1977-1985 (Lahore: Vanguard Books Ltd. ed. 14 Farzana Shaikh. Working with Zia: Pakistan’s Power Politics 1977-88 (Karachi: Oxford University Press. 1980). “The Pakistan’s Peoples Party” in Lawrence Ziring.. 13 The narratives of this period can be found in: Anwar Syed. 2005). eds. 18 Hassan Abbas. Pakistan: A Modern History (Lahore: Vanguard Books Ltd. “Pakistan’s Economic Development after 1971” in the same volume. Wriggins. Kemal and Moazzam Mahmood. Pakistan under the Military: Eleven Years of Ziaul Haq (Boulder. “Poverty and Policy in Pakistan” in Tariq Banuri. Fifty Years of Pakistan’s Economy: Traditional Topics and Contemporary Concerns (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 17 For a review of this period by a close aide and confidant of Zia. 1990). Pakistan: Founder’s Aspirations and Today’s Realities (Karachi: Oxford University Press.. Mohammad Waseem.J. 2004). Just Development: Beyond Adjustment with a Human Face (New York: Oxford University Press. other analyses include S. Employment. particularly the chapter on Democracy and Hypocrisy. Pakistan’s Drift into Extremism (London: M.11 For an authoritative account see Hasan Zaheer.E. ed. 20 United Nations Development Programme. 21 S. MD: Lexington Books.. and Zingel Lattlemant.M. 15 The widespread perception that income inequalities rose during the high-growth period of Ayub Khan and declined during the socialist period of Z. 1994).. Distribution and Basic Needs: Essays in honour of Jawaid Azfar(Lahore: Progressive Publications. Gilbert T. CO: Westview Press.. and Society(Lanham. S. Pakistan under Musharraf.. R. ed. Pakistan: Eye of the Storm (Lahore: Vanguard Books Ltd. Issues in Pakistan’s Economy (Karachi: Oxford University Press.J. Pakistan under Bhutto 1971-77 (London: Macmillan. Pakistan: The Long View (Durham. 2002). 2004). Arif. and Ahmed Faruqi. Shahrukh Rafi Khan and Moazzam Mahmood.” in Shahrukh Rafi Khan. 1985). 2002). Economics.. “The Role of the Military in Politics 1947-97” in Hafeez Malik. Braibanti and H. in Shahrukh Rafi Khan.328.. NC: Duke University Center for Commonwealth and Comparative Studies. K. 1999). 2009). Pakistan in the 1980s (Lahore: Vanguard Books Ltd. Pakistan on the Brink: Politics..R. 19 The tumultuous history of this period can be found in Craig Baxter. see K.. Burki. 1995).355. in 1968/69: 0. Editorial. and Ian Talbot. 1999). 12 I. Human Development Report 1990 (New York: Oxford University Press. “Poverty in Pakistan: A Review. Brown.. Bhutto is belied by the following data: the Gini coefficient in 1963/64: 0.. 1999). Burki. 1997). eds.M. Akbar Zaidi. 1991). ed. 19 July 2009. Rehman. ed. and Mahbubul Haq and Moin Baqai. International News (Pakistan). 16 For a more sympathetic view see Haris Gazdar. The Separation of East Pakistan (Karachi: Oxford University Press.. ed. Making Sense of Pakistan (London: Hurst & Co. Lawrence Ziring. Presented by researchers A. 1998-2002: Economic Reform and Political Change (Lahore: Vanguard Books 2004).375. 2001). 1986).A. S. in 1979: 0. 1977).